M Vers wrote:
Is RG sponsored and or contracted by Nikon? If so why would anyone sponsored by Nikon give it's top competitor a good word? Other manufacturers may very well advertise on RG's site, but are any of them in direct correlation with Canon?
AFAIK, RG simply accepts advertizing from Nikon on his site, that's well short of being under contract to or sponsored by. My guess is that he is trying to be objective - I don't see how he could expect to have a future if he was found to be deliberately "fixing" reviews for one manufacturer. Whether you agree with his testing methodology is another matter ...
M Vers wrote:
Is RG sponsored and or contracted by Nikon? If so why would anyone sponsored by Nikon give it's top competitor a good word? Other manufacturers may very well advertise on RG's site, but are any of them in direct correlation with Canon?
globalkiwi wrote:
AFAIK, RG simply accepts advertizing from Nikon on his site, that's well short of being under contract to or sponsored by. My guess is that he is trying to be objective - I don't see how he could expect to have a future if he was found to be deliberately "fixing" reviews for one manufacturer. Whether you agree with his testing methodology is another matter ...
I don't believe his tests are "fixed", just biased.
globalkiwi wrote:
AFAIK, RG simply accepts advertizing from Nikon on his site, that's well short of being under contract to or sponsored by. My guess is that he is trying to be objective - I don't see how he could expect to have a future if he was found to be deliberately "fixing" reviews for one manufacturer. Whether you agree with his testing methodology is another matter ...
Now, if one is under contractual agreements is it made public? I'm just confused by all the good things I have been hearing in regards to the MKIV by other professionals in the field, yet RG seems to report practically opposite findings. Just seems odd to me is all--Guess I'll wait until I've got my MKIV in hand to judge whether or not its good enough for myself...
If he is & he doesn't (make it public) then that is fishy! I share your feeling that it's too early to tell whether RG is being contrarian (compared to other reviews) because he's discovered something significant (as was the case with the 1DIII) or because he's off-base on this one (for whatever reason).
I guess I will join the fray about smaller subjects as opposed to larger. I am a N&W shooter here in the UK and Ireland. Mdbassman and bf5hpjg seem to have very valid points from my perspective so far. Shoot a Vulcan zooming thru the Lakes region close and it is 100% IF. Coming at you with CP on nose and only using 1 CP, grossly OOF!
My initial reaction to the fw1.03 was when I shot BIF and now here in the UK at the "Lakes" shooting jets, is that the smaller the subject the worse the tracking versus in focus the MKIV is! Images reviewed in DPP show AF point locked on but image, even on a tripod, non IS lens, are very OOF at 100%.
Now my MKIV came with 1.03 already installed. I upgraded without reading any of the posts here(UK) and on FM Images taken at the Manchester Bird Sanctuary were not good at all considering that all CFns, triipod, lens ect were all default! No custom CFns, 1 center point AF, AI Serovo both with all 45, right and left and surroundind resulting in prett poor results.
I am hoping it is just poor operator errors.
Les Zigurski seems to have a great setup for determining good results.
This is just FYI and opinion.
Patrick Dixon.
M Vers wrote:
I thought the general consensus was that it was an enhancement. Was there an official announcement stating the firmware update was actually a fix, or at least some other type of proof? Because I didn't see it.
If you can't get your Mark IV to track a subject moving slowly towards the camera, you might think that's a problem that needs to be fixed. Nothing in the manual says "Will not track subjects moving slowly towards the camera" so it's reasonable to think it should do that.
However when Canon releases something in version 1.0.6 of the firmware to let your camera do that correctly, Canon feels they've "enhanced" your camera since you shouldn't have expected it to do that before.
jmikes955 wrote:
Wedding photography is a very serious topic and profession. But not all wedding shooters are to be taken seriously when they get outside their comfort zone.
Come on people! Let's not berate or bellittle others here but offer constructive criticisms and move on. We all have allot to learn and here on FM from eachother.
What matters is that each of us considers what he/she shoot as serious and photography. There is enough room here for all types of the subject. There is much gray area are between beginner and pro/advanced.
Now if all this is in jest at someones expense then.. I apologize it went right over my old bald head!
Good shooting!
Dan
jmikes955 wrote:
You haven't heard about any other serious tests from reputable journalists because RG's is the first.
Who you determine as reputable may not correlate with who I find reputable. A few weeks ago there was a sports photographer who commented on the 1DIV. He gave it nothing but praise. Funny that the images he posted were from an NFL game in broad daylight--one of the teams was wearing red. RG found this was where the MKIV performed the worst, yet the samples were great. Anyone care to post the link?
scowl wrote:
If you can't get your Mark IV to track a subject moving slowly towards the camera, you might think that's a problem that needs to be fixed.
The firmware update was to enhance AF when a subject was receding as well. Either way I didn't hear any complaints prior to firmware 1.0.6.
M Vers wrote:
Who you determine as reputable may not correlate with who I find reputable. A few weeks ago there was a sports photographer who commented on the 1DIV. He gave it nothing but praise. Funny that the images he posted were from an NFL game in broad daylight--one of the teams was wearing red. RG found this was where the MKIV performed the worst, yet the samples were great. Anyone care to post the link?
Sure, it was linked to by Galbarith, that <sarcasm alert> Nikon biased guy <sarcasm complete> on his site here:
Well my Toyota Avensis Verso just blew it's turbo unit after 62K miles. I am not a happy bunny.
I just heard a good Toyota joke.
I'm just driving home in my new Toyota Prius. Chat later, can't stop
I have also just bought a used Mk III with an early serial no. No idea yet though on the AF on moving subjects. On stationary subjects I am getting awesome shots.
M Vers wrote:
Who you determine as reputable may not correlate with who I find reputable. A few weeks ago there was a sports photographer who commented on the 1DIV. He gave it nothing but praise. Funny that the images he posted were from an NFL game in broad daylight--one of the teams was wearing red. RG found this was where the MKIV performed the worst, yet the samples were great. Anyone care to post the link?
jmikes955 wrote
It's advertising. You do know what that means, don't you? People pay you to display their message. You know, like in a newspaper? Or on television? Buying an ad doesn't mean you get editorial control. Simply because Macy's buys an ad in the Times doesn't mean it dictates Yankee coverage. You aren't exposing hypocrisy by claiming Galbraith is on the take. You're simply revealing your own bias and ignorance.
Bad Analogy.
The 1D mkiii I could see, but his analysis of the 7D was far off. Even dpreview and pop photo gave great reviews for the 7D and they arguably have somewhat of a Nikon slant. The post processing RG did with his 7D photos was absolutely horrible. Go look at the review yourself.
Once is acceptable (since the Af on the 1D really was crappy for some), Twice is a coincidence (seeing that everyone else gave the 7D great reviews), and now I'm holding out to see what everyone else says about the mkIV. IF it gets praise then RG is a joke
RG stated on the 7D review
Noise, when it appears, has a natural graininess to it, up until about ISO 1600 as well. At ISO 3200 and beyond you'll run into increasingly unmanageable amounts of digital dandruff (white pixels spread throughout darker areas) and plugged shadows.
Funny, no one else found any. I don't even see any at ISO 12800 and he claims there is some at 3200. I've posted plenty of high iso shots here.
He couldn't focus on a dog properly. Seeing that I'm the king of pet shots (action and portrait), and never having any problems unless I'm shooting in almost complete darkness, maybe he should stick to sports. Nature photographers find the camera a high precision machine. He was totally wrong about the 4OD's AF.
When there are only Nikon ads on his site I'm sure one can only takes what he says with a grain of salt. All of this change of heart happened when Canon stopped advertising tons on his site, not the other way around.
M Vers wrote:
I'm just confused by all the good things I have been hearing in regards to the MKIV by other professionals in the field, yet RG seems to report practically opposite findings. Just seems odd to me is all--Guess I'll wait until I've got my MKIV in hand to judge whether or not its good enough for myself...
I think that's the best thing to do also. Obviously other people are reporting very good results. RG reports findings on the way he uses and tests the cameras. And I feel he's very credible and calling it as he sees it.
However, based on reports at this time, I'm going to wait and see if Canon releases another AF related firmware update before I jump in with my own five thousand dollars. I do want to buy one.
I apologize it went right over my old bald head! 
If that isn't ironic! Thanks, Joe.
